(05-01-2016 09:14 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote: Agree with the premise that IF the universe, earth, and humans are all the work of a divine architect, he/she/it couldn't possibly condemn us for using our intellects to our advantage.

Unless human intelligence is an unforeseen outcome and the divine architect is like "What the fuck? How do I kill off this infection?"

(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote: Unless human intelligence is an unforeseen outcome and the divine architect is like "What the fuck? How do I kill off this infection?"

You make a good point. I once nearly gave a theist a heart attack by stating that if there is a god there's nothing to indicate we're anything to him at all besides a fungus growing on some chicken salad in the back of his refrigerator; no intent, no design, but rather something that occurred entirely without his knowledge and as a result of his laziness.

(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote: Unless human intelligence is an unforeseen outcome and the divine architect is like "What the fuck? How do I kill off this infection?"

You make a good point. I once nearly gave a theist a heart attack by stating that if there is a god there's nothing to indicate we're anything to him at all besides a fungus growing on some chicken salad in the back of his refrigerator; no intent, no design, but rather something that occurred entirely without his knowledge and as a result of his laziness.

I can interpret that in a positive direction actually. Is that a bad thing?

(05-01-2016 03:26 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote: You make a good point. I once nearly gave a theist a heart attack by stating that if there is a god there's nothing to indicate we're anything to him at all besides a fungus growing on some chicken salad in the back of his refrigerator; no intent, no design, but rather something that occurred entirely without his knowledge and as a result of his laziness.

I can interpret that in a positive direction actually. Is that a bad thing?

What's to interpret?
No one planned us, no one designed us, no one created us - we are but one product of an evolutionary process that is blind and uncaring and ongoing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(05-01-2016 08:42 AM)Noric Wrote: Now I'm gonna start off by saying I don't know jack shit about deep philosophy, science, or religion really, at least comparatively. But there's a qualm I've always had with the science denying flavor of fundamentalism. Now I'm a theist to a certain degree, but if by some off chance we were put here, we're obviously also supposed to survive. So using that basic concept, isn't it kinda... ass backwards do deny the understanding and continuing study of the earth and environment and universe around us to better use it to our advantage and prolong the survival of our species, even based on religious doctrines? What are you guys thoughts on this? I can clarify if anything I said was vague. I tend to do that...

Hi Noric. Welcome to the forum. I have to say, you don't sound like the theists that we typically get around here. And yes, that is meant as a compliment.

To keep a long story short, fundamentalism and science are opposing world views. Fundamentalism is dogmatic. It begins and ends with Divine Truth. You don't ask questions because questioning Divine Truth is equivalent to questioning God Allmighty and will get you burnt at the stake for heresy.

By contrast, science is a system for asking questions and getting (1) answers and (2) a whole lot more questions. Looked at one way, science is systematic and repeated heresy. It's also exceptionally effective, which is more than a little embarassing for fundamentalism.

And no, I couldn't tell you why somebody would willingly turn their turn their brains off. I'm the sort that gets himself burnt at the stake.

---

Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.

If a god does exist, then it isn't concerned with our survival or our well being. The world looks very much like a world in which there are no magical solutions to poverty, homelessness, starvation, disease, genocide, etc.

(05-01-2016 06:38 PM)Rahn127 Wrote: If a god does exist, then it isn't concerned with our survival or our well being. The world looks very much like a world in which there are no magical solutions to poverty, homelessness, starvation, disease, genocide, etc.

A thought... if this God exists as omniscient, should it then be unavoidably aware of our existence? That would lend itself to a pretty cruel version of God (that's if you don't already think he's cruel as is), one that is by definition aware, but willfully uncaring. I can understand a lot of distaste with the supreme deity concept from that perspective.

When I was a theist my reasoning was that whether God existed or not the universe would still be the way it was. God can still exist and the bible would still be wrong. There as no connection between the truth of scripture and its existence. So even if God exists the geologic column is still a thing, evolution is still true, etc.

Fundamentalists don't understand this. They believe that scripture must be infallible in order for God to exist. They even state this. It's an odd form of heresy and idolatry. It shows a theological and historical ignorance that is stunning.